Investing in gold is the answer to everything.
Debate Rounds (5)
It's just true.
A few rules first.
1) This is a troll debate. This is not a serious debate. It is only a troll debate.
2) Please attempt to be entertaining.
3) The debate will end in a tie. Any attempt to net points to one side will result in being roundhouse kicked in the face by Chuck Norris.
K, this looks fun..
But seriously, everything????
"But seriously, everything????"
Yes, everything. You just don't even know.
Heck, Gold is the answer to that question. Gold equals everything, eventually.
Ask a question, and I will explain how gold answers it.
I fully agree with my opponent on how gold is the answer to everything.
However, investing in gold is not. If we examine the English language carefully, we may eventually surmise that investing implies a verb that is different from gold. (which can be a noun, verb, name, Greek, Latin, adverb and/or an adjective). Since gold is all-powerful and encompasses everything known to us, Investing in Gold is not the answer to everything since gold is the answer to everything.
Now, you may not believe me, but I direct you to one of the best and more reliable sources on the Internet. Urban Dictionary.
Nowhere does it say that we should invest in gold.
Here's a well-cited source on the ethics of gold's amazingness. (Refer to video)
I think what my opponent fails to understand is what gold means.
We all know that:
Gold is a 1932 American film directed by Otto Brower. An early sound B western, the film starred Jack Hoxie in the second of his six sound westerns, featuring Hooper Atchley as the villain Kramer. The film also marked the last screen appearance of silent movie actress Alice Day.
The film was a disaster and much to unpopular to even get a youtube reference. Thus, investing in it will only result in a lack of KFC and any self-realization.
I rest my case.
"Since gold is all-powerful and encompasses everything known to us, Investing in Gold is not the answer to everything since gold is the answer to everything."
False. If we don't invest in gold, we don't have gold, thus we don't have the answer to everything. In order to get the answer to everything, we must invest in the answer to everything. Thus, investing in gold is the answer to get the answer to everything, and thus is the answer to everything.
He then cites widely renowned Urban Dictionary, but his information is false. If you click on the link, scroll down to the bottom, then hit ALT and F4 at the same time, it will send you to the page where it clearly illustrates why we should invest in gold. You have to time it just right, because if you don't press the two buttons at precisely the same time, it'll close the browser. But you can do it, and if you do it right, it will send you to the page.
"The film was a disaster and much too unpopular to even get a youtube reference. Thus, investing in it will only result in a lack of KFC and any self-realization."
False! If we invest in gold, then people will realize how sh*tty of a movie it is, then leave in the middle of it to go get some KFC, finally realizing that without gold, there would be no KFC.
False. If we don't invest in gold, we don't have gold, thus we don't have the answer to everything. In order to get the answer to everything, we must invest in the answer to everything.
Simply put, that's an incorrect assumption. Whether we invest in gold or not is independant from whether someone gets Rickrolled. Since gold is a film in 1923 that has already been made, we can assume that by investing in it, we are actually messing with the fabrics of time. The rules of time of very simple.
a) Time starts at -9999 bce.
b) Time ends at Dec. 21, 2012
c) The rules of time are written here
d) 1923 was a dumb year
While gold is the answer to everything, we do not need to invest in it since logically, investing in the answer is something that no one should do.
To address my opponent's second point. I'd like to remark that I concede that there is a source from urban dictionary stating that we should invest in gold. However, the source appears to be from Enclopedia Britannica, which we all know is one of the most inaccurate and bs sources in existence. (Not used for academic sources.)
I'd like to point out that one cannot buy KFC easily in movie theatres (since they want to overcharge you on food) , and what my opponent fails to realize is that KFC and investments directly contradict each other.
KFC inplies Keep Federal Investments and non-Federal Investments on Cra*py movies such as gold low.
We note that the ideals of KFC directly contrast with investing in gold. Thus, we either get to invest our money in a "shi*tty movie" , or we get to enjoy the splendors of KFC. The choice is simple. The answer is yes.
"Since gold is a film in 1923 that has already been made, we can assume that by investing in it, we are actually messing with the fabrics of time."
False. By investing in gold, we actually repair the damage to the space-time continuum caused by the creation of the RickRoll. Your endorsement of it only further damages it. Investing in Gold fixes this problem, as it leads to less people getting RickRoll'd (since you don't get RickRoll'd in the middle of Gold).
"we do not need to invest in it since logically, investing in the answer is something that no one should do."
This is also drastically false by the laws of logic. Let's presume for a moment that x is representative of Gold, and f(x) is representative of our investment in gold. Y would then be equal to the answers to everything, and z would then be equal to KFC. We can then conclude that if f(x) is equal to y and that x is equal to f(x) - y +2/3, then we would be able to logically see that without gold, we would no longer exist. Investing in gold solves this problem, as it provides us with more KFC (z).
"However, the source appears to be from Enclopedia Brittanica-"
It's apparent that my opponent failed to press Alt and F4 at the same exact time successfully. Everyone who did do it went to Wikileaks, which we all know is the most credible source in the history of Goldfish.
"KFC and investments directly contradict eachother."
False. Without investments, we cannot have KFC. They are mutually beneficial. Below are three imaginary sources that prove so.
"KFC implies Keep Federal Investments and non-Federal Investments on Crappy movies such as gold low."
My opponent apparently cannot spell KFC. Perhaps he needs to go back to night school.
KFC clearly stands for Keep those Freaks who try to rickroll everyone in a detention Camp.
So clearly, KFC and Gold are not conflicting. We can have both at the same time. And it will get you thrown in Gitmo, which is also a plus.
Untitled123 forfeited this round.
Untitled123 forfeited this round.
1 votes has been placed for this debate.
Vote Placed by ConservativePolitico 4 years ago
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||3||0|
Reasons for voting decision: FF.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.